On the impact of masking and blocking hypotheses for measuring the efficacy of new tuberculosis vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 60 years, the Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) has been used worldwide to prevent tuberculosis (TB). However, BCG has shown a very variable efficacy in different trials, offering a wide range of protection in adults against pulmonary TB. One of the most accepted hypotheses to explain these inconsistencies points to the existence of a pre-existing immune response to antigens that are common to environmental sources of mycobacterial antigens and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Specifically, two different mechanisms have been hypothesized to explain this phenomenon: the masking and the blocking effects. According to masking hypothesis, previous sensitization confers some level of protection against TB that masks vaccine's effects. In turn, the blocking hypothesis postulates that previous immune response prevents vaccine taking of a new TB vaccine. In this work we introduce a series of models to discriminate between masking and blocking mechanisms and address their relative likelihood. We apply our methodology to the data reported by BCG-REVAC clinical trials, which were specifically designed for studying BCG efficacy variability. Our results yield estimates that are consistent with high levels of blocking (41% in Manaus -95% CI [14-68]- and 96% in Salvador -95% CI [52-100]-). Moreover, we also show that masking does not play any relevant role in modifying vaccine's efficacy either alone or in addition to blocking. The quantification of these effects around a plausible model constitutes a relevant step towards impact evaluation of novel anti-tuberculosis vaccines, which are susceptible of being affected by similar effects, especially if applied on individuals previously exposed to mycobacterial antigens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.184 | 0.298 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".